Of course I haven't said that natural materials cannot be manipulated. Mastery is another matter altogether. We cannot even master our own natures. If we continue to act as though nature is an endless storehouse of resources that may be used at will for our own profit we will soon come to know how little actual mastery of nature we have. — Janus

Whoever said we had endless resources? All I'm saying is that once you understand everything about something you can control it. I know all of the properties of dirt and I can find out what particles and elements are in it. Therefore I can do anything I wish with the dirt as long as it can be done with the dirt. That is mastery.

Okay, let’s just say ‘food and shelter’ — Brett

Shelter isn't necessary. Food is. If I had to hunt for food like our ancestors I would die only because I was not raised to have those skills. What you do in your developing years entirely decides how strong or smart you will be later on. That's your already established biology adapting to the environment, not an actual evolutionary change.

Sensations are not part of this discussion. — Brett

But we desire certain sensations. If you gave a caveman sugar they would love it just as much as we do.

Our desires change all the time from generation to generation. — Brett

Can I have an example?

We confuse need with desire. Technology now serves our desires, maybe even feeds them, maybe, one day even creates them. — Brett

We desire to feel good. Technology does this for us. If we can learn enough about our minds and what they want, maybe we can one day make new sensations we desire.

Same thing talking with science worshipers. — Jake

With all due respect I don't worship it. I know people who worship it. A worshiper will be devout and will not change. If you made a good point I would agree with you. I can't back that up of course but I suppose you could just take my word for it. Just know that I think that changing your mind isn't a weakness but a strength, and I'm not afraid to agree with you, but I won't unless you make a convincing argument.

Yes, I apologize. I have no personal beef with you, I really don't. But please understand, I've been discussing this for over a decade on many different sites, and I've heard everything you're saying, and the snarky attitude behind it, at least 56 million times. — Jake

I don't have any beef with you either. I apologize if I was too snarky but I do tend to match the attitude others give out. It's just banter anyway, all in good fun, I never intended to hurt your feelings too much.

I think that you are doing a good thing despite what you may think. The universe may work a certain way but we will never get there if we don't challenge already established ideas. Everyone needs a devil's advocate.

So that's on me, and it my little problem to sort out. — Jake

We all struggle with our impulses. Don't feel bad about that.

Rather, I think it leads to the illusion of a mastery of nature. — Janus

Yes, when my science teacher separated hydrogen and oxygen through electrolysis it was all smoke and mirrors.

Just another poser.... — Jake

Oh, I almost forgot. There's this great website called tumblr.com that I think is more your speed. You should check it out. They love activism.

I might have to separate ‘desire’ from ‘need’ here. We might infer that we desire a warm home or food, but in fact it’s a necessity for survival. We are obviously already confusing ‘desire’ with ‘need’. — Brett

A human being doesn't actually need a warm home or good food contrary to popular belief. Our ancestors slept in the cold open and ate very rarely. They still survived.

I know it’s the human hand behind the technology, but the things we are beginning to desire are far removed from who and what we have been, and a long way from what we need. — Brett

Biologically speaking, there is very little difference between you and your ancestors from 50,000 years ago. They were still comforted by the same sensations you and I are. They still desired to be warm instead of cold, full instead of hungry, and then did something about that. That thing they did is technology. We have always desired to be hedonists, we just never had the infrastructure to build a world for that until recently.

This also raises the question, can the problem create the solution? — Brett

Technology only becomes a problem when we make it one. The same science is used to make both nuclear weapons and build nuclear power plants. We are the ones that choose to make these things.

So, what do we "need"? Are you referring to some sort of spiritual meaning? If it's that, I can assure you the chemicals that make us feel that can be replicated, probably soon.

where they can throw up more ego fueled smoke. — Jake

Aren't you the one getting a little angry?

What they typically do instead is what you're doing, throw up a bunch of ego fueled smoke and then get bored — Jake

So, what would you consider, "ego fueled smoke"?

Our outdated relationship with knowledge is not going to be edited with reason. What I've been wrong about was the assumption that was possible. — Jake

Why do you think this though? You cling to this truth but is it really even true?

So, it is entirely possible to debunk my posts on this subject, but sadly for you, you're not up to the job, so I have to do it for you. — Jake

So, what have I been doing? You seem to drop an argument after I criticize it. Am I supposed to assume that you have an argument and you are just sparing me?

But, you're in plenty of good company. And if you're a 20-something, you have a perfectly reasonable excuse. — Jake

You've been losing an argument on the internet, and it's actually made you mad to boot. But, you're in plenty of good company. And if you're a 70-something, you have a perfectly reasonable excuse.

Where are your threads on the subject? Point us to them please. — Jake

Why do I need a thread on something to have interest?

Not only that, I forgot why I bother to discuss this on philosophy forums at all. — Jake

Have you ever considered that if you can't prove a point to anyone, you may be wrong? It may be an interesting avenue of thought. Perhaps you should explore that.

Then, would you also agree that coal powered energy is furthering our goals, whatever they are ( are we going to define those goals now or make them up as we go) and is ‘no compromise’. What about nuclear weapons or energy? — Brett

You can't make an omelet without cracking a few eggs. Nuclear energy is fine for the most part, it's coal and nukes I'll focus on.

The end goal I see for most people is satisfying their desires. The desire to live in a warm home or eat good food or have good relationships. We may make compromises in the condition of our planet to reach these goals, but we are not compromising who we are as you say. A great thing about technology is that it can solve problems that short-sighted use of prior technology creates. Missile defense systems solve the problem of nuclear war. More eco-friendly energy sources can replace coal.

Will we make a pact with technology and in the process compromise who and what we are? — Brett

We are what we choose to be. If technology made by us furthers our goals then it might as well be a part of us. We are making no compromises in who we are because making technology is one of the things we have done since the dawn of human history.

This thread may help: — Jake

Ah, a good visit back to the antinatislt type argument where any negativity invalidates all positivity.

You forgot about nuclear power. You forgot about technology letting us colonize the stars, making nuclear weapons ending civilization a thing of the past (we’re entering the beginning phases of that by the way). You forgot about mutually assured destruction. You forgot about the innumerable failsafes nuclear powers have in place to stop their countdowns. You forgot about nuclear bunkers filled with technology to rebuild the future. You forgot about the versitality of mankind, essentially. You forgot a lot.

You say that more is better doesn’t fit us anymore, but why? For food it never made sense, as you seem to also imply. Poisonous mushrooms have always killed us. I wouldn’t like more of those. It’s about type of food/knowledge, not amount. Even then, a nuclear weapon is a useful tool in defense in the case that we encounter hostile aliens or we create a planet wide plague we can’t cure on a colony in the future. Of course, that’s all speculation, but it it doesn’t take away from my original point. Technology is all about how you use it. A nuclear war could destroy my entire planet but a system of nuclear power plants could give electricity to the world.

I don’t think any planet destroying tech is worth stopping any and all scientific progress so we can go back to worshiping a god you can’t prove is real and hopping he pitys us enough to let our crops grow.

Let's start with something simpler first. Let's change our brains so that we aren't incurably bored by the discussion of the most pressing threat to everything humanity has built over the last 500 years. Once that's done, the rest of your proposal will become more credible. — Jake

Are you bored of that? I’m not.

My mistake is in the persistent assumption that discussing such issues will accomplish anything at all. Seriously, not being sarcastic. THAT is my logical flaw, which I freely admit to. — Jake

Perhaps you should make a good point before you start preaching about your crusade to convert heathens.

And go easy on rank ameteur. While being hostile can sometimes get a point across is does make people dislike you. That isn’t good for productive discourse. Of course you misunderstand logical thinking anyway, don’t you? The proof comes first, then belief. That is what you can’t get past. There’s no reason for anyone to believe in your god other than indoctrination and emotional weakness and you seem to have no counter to that.

I never said I knew where we were. His argument was that we were near the bottom on A physical scale. I proposed that we were not on such a scale. I apologize if that was confusing. Live and learn I suppose.

I don’t know where we are, but I do know we’re on the right track. No one knows where knowledge will end but we do know that we have some. We should use it.

To me, it's a fairy tale that any of us know what is or isn't a fairy tale, in regards to issues the scale of the God theory.

The God idea is a collection of theories about the most fundamental nature of everything everywhere, the ultimate big picture question.

Human beings are a single half insane species only recently living in caves on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies.

Expecting something as small as humans to understand something as large as the nature of everything is like expecting a squirrel to understand the Internet, in my typoholic opinion. — Jake

Your mistake is confusing physical scale for our position on a scale of knowledge. The universe is big but it’s almost entirely made up of the same stuff. If there is something beyond the horizon that is entirely different, we will probably see it again. We know about a lot of the things we can see and have explained them.

You assume that a piece of the puzzle can’t understand the rest of the puzzle. That is wrong.

As for your comment on age. In your view, time is everything. Sure, a 15 year old is more ignorant than a 30 year old on average, but what of the 45 year old? Ultimately, we are all infants compared to the age of the observable universe. If your logic held true, not even the old wise man I assume you are wouldn’t even be close to knowing that he doesn’t know. And you know that you don’t know, don’t you?

It leads to a mastery of nature, but not a mastery of the human condition. Thus for example, we are brilliant enough to be able to create nuclear weapons, while at the same time being insane and stupid enough to actually do so. — Jake

And why can’t we change ourselves to use technology more safely? Cybernetics to enhance physical strength and memory are advancing all the time. We can change our brains to not feel the anger needed to launch a nuke. We are nature ourselves, therefore mastery of nature is mastery of ourselves.

have no issue in general with your point - but language like this is pejorative and IMO should be avoided — Rank Amateur

Criticism is absolutely necessary for open discourse. Criticism doesn’t have to always be positive in nature to be useful either. I do my best to be kind but if I happen to be rude i have faith that others can take the little disrespect I dish out. If they can’t handle that I don’t consider them to be fit for debate in the first place.

Human reason has proven itself useful for an uncountable number of practical tasks that humans encounter. But that fact does not prove that human reason is also qualified to credibly address the very largest of questions. — Jake

The fundamental difference between science and religion is that while religion attempts to explain phenomenon, science seeks to understand and control them. This leads to a mastery of nature and benefit to the general populace. You can genuinely understand why something happens through science, and that’s why it’s our best bet. Sure, it could all be coincidence and we could really understand nothing, but that’s quite a few coincidences.

It is easier to prove that nothing exists rather than proving something does. In some understandings of the universe, a creator is necessary. Who started the universe? I think the better question is what. Why does it have to be a sentient being that created the universe? I think it more likely to be a force or natural mechanism of the universe that created existence. There is no need for a god and no evidence for one. Why should I believe in a benevolent overlord when there is absolutely no evidence to the point that it’s nonexistence is so much more likely.

I agree with your sentiment about us being brothers and sisters. As I said above I have no problem with people being religious in their free time. However, if we want to improve our lives and learn about the universe, that is impossible when we believe fairy tales. If it makes you happy and gives your life meaning, fine. If a community wants to build a church and pray for things to get better, fine. But when they walk into their jobs, rationality must rule. I would feel more comfortable living in a building designed by someone who understands math and physics rather than one built by someone who prayed it would stay up and doesn’t understand how to build a house. If they do both, I don’t care, as long as they do the first.

What about the discipline of chemistry. The first atomists had no clear reason to believe for sure on their specultions based on observation, but later on come 1700/1800 individuals chose to investigate and found those ideas to be true. Those initial folks were perhaps laughed at or ridiculed that their ideas were beyond sense. Who knows of that would have ocurred had not those initial seeds been planted. How did they base what they thought on direct observation? — kudos

They observed that certain materials had certain properties and then theororized that atoms existed and those materials had different properties based on what made up those atoms. At least that's my understanding of it. Then later on people went looking for atoms and found them. You say those folks were laughed at and that's probably true, they should have been. Only after you present evidence should people believe you.

Two people observe similar lives, one believes in a G-d the other does not. One’s claim clearly has a better ‘chance’ of being right by existing rational arguement the other is much less so. Neither fully understands those observations. I say it is irrational that one should claim the right that the other is not correct to the point of taking away that liberty of speculation. — kudos

I think that people should be able to be religious. I just don't think they should be taken seriously until they show proof that god exists. Whatever you decide to worship or believe durring your free time is your buisness, but when you go into work or to contribute to society you put unprovable beliefs aside and work with what we can prove.

All men believe what they sense, but does argueing for the universal spread of atheism mean that one must systematically deny anything outside of its realms of plausibility? — kudos

No, it just means you have to prove what you believe. Typically first comes an observation, then the process of human imagination thinking up an explanation, and then using sensory data to prove your explanation.

If it doesn't seem plausible, you should expect people not to believe it until you can prove that it is plausible.

I am going to have to put some thought into this. It was so much easier to just pick apart a partial hypothetical, hehe. — ZhouBoTong

I don't blame you for wanting to do that. It seems our minds take the path of least resistance and most fun and I most certainly would have done the same thing. Take your time.

So do you think we should create an artificial culture to keep people from creating problems? Most cultures waste things and its par for the course. You could try to build this culture on reason but a lot of people disagree on what that is. It truly is complicated.

There is a natural feeling of what is right and wrong. This can be the source of further examination.
I don't know how much of that is included in the curriculum or even as a way to inform individual or group discussion. However, the earlier we become aware of both internal and external factors related to wellbeingness, the better - in my opinion. — Amity

Feeling that things are right or wrong is natural, but how do we decide what is right or wrong? We are socialized into it. In one culture you can eat a pig and it is very encouraged. In another, you might be shunned for it. To these groups, their respective actions feel right.

No, they did not swim and pull the boat. — Bitter Crank

One of the things I love about advice from elders is that they add stuff like this. Of course, I love the practical applications too. I think that spreading some kind of awareness that these skills might be needed would be useful. Nobody needs to take too much time out of their day to understand how to plant a seed or milk a cow or repair a bike. Of course, they won't be a master when they need to do it for the first time, but they will at least have a step up from no knowledge at all. I would say a sizable portion of the population really only knows where certain foods come from and not much else.

This seems like some good stuff, thank you. It’ll take me some time to look into it but I’ll try and get back to you.

My apologies amity. I didn’t mean to leave you out, it just looked like your responses were aimed more at others. I’m not at home right now so I’ll give your writing a good reading when I am. I’m sure it’s just as interesting.

that’s the spirit, you can’t do anymore than what you can do after all. If that isn’t good enough then we’re doomed anyway so we might as well try.

So a call to action? Maybe that is necessary. I guess the question now is what to do after that.

And what if you are still alive? I suppose if you have no hope then there’s no point in going on anyway. Regardless that sounds more like an excuse for not doing anything. Of course, it’s an excuse I can’t say is wrong.

It sounds like your grandparents would have been a great resource for this kind of thing. I have wondered for a long time why we don’t at least document the lives and thoughts of people who are older so that we have those thoughts when they’re gone. Typically a family just morns and moves in and might have a few pictures. No one asks grandpa what he thinks the meaning of life is on his death bed.

Being from a rural area I know a bit about farming and I’m not afraid to get my hands dirty, but livestock is beyond me. I think that generally knowledge of farming comes proportionally with proximity to rural areas. It doesn’t help that by definition urban areas are highly populated.

You said you were 72. I suppose if we can’t get your grandparents perspective, we could get yours, and I suppose we already have. If you have anything to add it could help however. What experiences have you learned from that could help us rebuild after something like this?

Truly if we are to survive we must be willing to cooperate. Hostility isn’t great when conditions are bad and anything we can do to reduce such a thing is worth looking into. Perhaps we can soft mold our psychology into being less confrontational? That might produce unwanted side effects though.

Ah, I see the issue now. I implied that there was a greatest strength when the point I wanted to get across was that I think we have many strengths. I never would have thought of that actually, so thank you.

I think I'd add understanding the difference between singular and plural grammatically. — Terrapin Station

This one is interesting. It seems implied that I am not human from this, because I didn't meet the standard of understanding singular and plural. Either that or I am some demi-human. I am willing to accept this, but in return, will you point out my mistake? I wrote this rather late at night and I probably did make a mistake I'm willing to learn from.

World government, administered online. Get everyone a cheap phone so they can vote. Public Co-option of google infrastructure to do it, perhaps. — bert1

A techno-democracy of sorts. I have played with the idea before. Since it was my dead end on the subject, how do you propose we stop hackers from playing the elections? World governments seem to have trouble with hacking constantly and I don't think that is going away. Otherwise, a useful contribution to the discussion.

To solve global problems countries have to co-operate to do a lot of difficult and extremely disruptive and expensive things. They won't do that, not all at once in a sufficiently co-ordinated way. It's too disparate and competitive. — bert1

I have pondered that maybe our current system of governance is hurting us in the long term. I think we should start theory crafting better and more effective forms of governing.

I think calling all people who question the causes, and the practical solutions of climate change “climate change deniers” is insulting. — I like sushi

I apologize if I offended you or others. That was not the intention. For future reference, what do people who question if climate change is real go by? To clarify further, I am not against people thinking that it isn't real and I think they may have some ground to stand on some of the time. The truth is that no one really knows for sure.

Given that world leaders and organisations have gotten together and weighed the pro and cons of where to focus on global issues shows clearly enough that issues with the climate are best dealt with indirectly and are beign dealt with in this manner. — I like sushi

I think that this generally assumes that world leaders care about the general population. Some nations wear neglect for their peoples on their sleeves and some hide it from the world. I would say most world governments don't care about the average person and also have comfortable bunkers and supplies ready for emergencies that conveniently don't have room for us.

It is also a smidge hypocritical to say “fear is a detriment” right after saying “A disaster is coming in the near future”. It is hard to take your instance on that matter seriously in this light. — I like sushi

When I said, "A disaster is coming in the near future" it was part of the hypothetical I proposed. For the most part, I think that any kind of disaster we can really detect is far off. I just wanted to shift the conversation on the forum from discussing how bad the world is going to be to how we could make the world a better place. I apologize if my wording was confusing in any way.

So I think the best we can do to reduce the number of people that grow up to make selfish decisions is to take responsibility for showing love and respect to everyone in arm's reach. The more people that do that, the more that impulse will spread over time.

That's what I think. — mejonat

I question if selfishness is learned, an innate part of the human mind, or both. I think we could hope to separate ourselves from it over time, but it would take a very long time. It's also very hard to change people's mindset without forcing them at gunpoint, which would also fall into the realm of what could be called a decision made at the expense of another.

Hope is mistakenly viewed as something to lose, in the past or in the present, when it’s really a matter of being aware of the potential of where we can go, despite where we are currently or where we were before. — Possibility

Potential seems very important. Convincing the public that a bright future is ahead of them is nigh essential to creating a bright future, it seems.

The trick is to develop a way to interact with the future as potential, not as actual. As you say, — Possibility

I may have implied that disaster is imminent but I don't think I feel that way. All I really wanted to do was shift the attitude here from "gloom and doom" to "problem-solving". I also wanted to make sure that we didn't get bogged down on one topic. Maybe I made the question a bit too open-ended.

I am a little confused. Are we talking a rather minor disaster? Anything that results in societal collapse (ie no more governments), would make these questions no longer matter...? When struggling to survive, one does not have much time for philosophy. I think I mis-interpreted your hypothetical (non)scenario? — ZhouBoTong

I think in my attempt to avoid a conversation about climate change I failed to direct a conversation on rebuilding a shattered world better than it was before. By investing I more meant what solutions via technology would you put faith in.

You make a good point that there is no room for higher thinking when immediate survival is a must. I think that's why we should do the thinking now.

I can get past the specific disaster, but I think we need some idea of who survives. 6 billion? 4 billion? 1 billion? 1 million? Dozens? Do some governments still exist? Corporations? — ZhouBoTong

I really think it depends on how bad it gets. I also think we would need different plans for different scenarios. So do A if X happens, do B if Y happens, etc. No one knows when the meteor we didn't see is going to hit us or how fast sea levels might rise.

I think that you could have a general set of rules to prepare for anything, but specifics are really up to the disaster. Rationing food, for example, is something that would be needed regardless of the degree or type of disaster. It would also be nice to have some sort of central authority on this kind of stuff. I don't know about you but I don't count the UN. They aren't great about the whole "authority" thing. I think that's why most discussions about regulating industrial waste don't go anywhere.

I’m sorry but I don’t see any solutions to an impossible situation. — Noah Te Stroete

And what you see is all there is to see, I'm sure.

So as long as we don't lose hope we should be fine. Yes, I know how hard that might be. — hachit

It seems that is our first hurdle. A psychological disposition to give up when odds are low. It turns out that giving up is a bad idea when what you are giving up is everything.